Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Jun 6, 2011 2:06pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead Channel on Serius?

Actually, I suspect that most younger people discovering the Dead would like the early years more, if they heard them... The '80s/90s tend to sound pretty offputting to these ears!
Don't know if there's enough young'uns around here to poll.

I'll grant that the 'later years' do have a more dense sound; they sound more like a 'big band' with more electronics, so that could tickle some folks. The playing can be very allusive, full of ideas even if the execution is fumbled or the tones are ugly - actually, even the grating sound could be part of the appeal these days. The early era sounds too simple & undeveloped for many listeners; and it's hard to say how many country covers or Pigpen r&b covers would appeal to the younger crowd.

And yet, I still believe the late era is popular mainly because so many people went to those shows; so when the memories decline, so will its popularity.
Of course, I'm biased! Maybe among future deadheads the late era will become acclaimed for its finesse & sophistication, and the '90s will become 'the golden years'!

But as far as new listeners discovering the Dead, it's ironic that generally you have to hear quite a bit of Dead to discover what you really like. I'm sure many a soul has been put off by whatever crap they first heard; I never would've dreamed I'd like the Dead if I hadn't stumbled across some 1968.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: clementinescaboose Date: Jun 6, 2011 4:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead Channel on Serius?

my discovery of the music was basically word of mouth and the internet of course. initially i gravitated towards the 1977 Dead because of the "polished" sound. but as i discovered more and more (especially from the early era) similarly, i'd say that's when i really began to fall in love with the music.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: brotherbuttcrack Date: Jul 5, 2011 6:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead Channel on Serius?

I'm 20. I've been listening to the Grateful Dead (hard) for I guess the past maybe 3 years?

Time aside, I can't get enough of the pigpen years. I have to yet to stomach a full serving of Brent era Dead.

When I first got into them, it was primal all the way. I head Live/Dead and i was hooked. I slowly got into the 73-74 era. and after that I (even more slowly) eventually got into 75-77)..But it all took time.

So, who's to say? Maybe I'll one day see the beauty in the 80s and beyond. But until then I can't stand it, and what it stands for.
It just sounds so dry, lifeless, and simply not engaging. Aside from the sound of Brent's voice and cheesy keys, I definitely reserve a bit of prejudice for that era as well.

One thing that always resonates within me is hearing Jerry say (on some interview regarding the Dead's later years) something like "we were addicted to affluence". And I always took that as "we were only doing it for the money"

So yea. I love 66-spring of 77. (Passenger and Miracle killed it for me). I just go through random phases of loving one particular era/sub-era.

So, here you are, Sir: One young Dead-lover's opinion.

Happy Trails.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Jul 5, 2011 7:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead Channel on Serius?

welcome brother.

It's a long trail with lots of twists and turns... for your steps alone.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: wisconsindead Date: Jun 6, 2011 2:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead Channel on Serius?

well Im a young head who loves, essentially, all dead. My ma and pa never got into the dead but are certainly old enough to have seen a few hundred shows.

I think of things through evolution, so for some peeps they listen to the 80s because thats what was given to them in the beginning. I worked my way through napster and found shit here and there and eventually to nugs.net, and then archive. Im not sure what it is but personally, the late 60s dead is ferocious awesome stuff. But like i said a few days ago, i was jammin hard to some 94 (and it was good stuff!). So i think its partly who brought you into the dead and what they listened to. I really didnt have any old heads around to tell me about the good ol days. I found it through searching and i like what i like because of what ive found.

Another thing to be said, late 60s dead is so different from what the dead did 72 and beyond that i can see why many arent fond of it. Or vice versa like with Cliff.

I also hold no biases when it comes to the scene, how things were and how they changed. Many old heads seem to be bitter about the way things evolved and they have their opinions because of it. I just listen to the music so i think i can dig the late stuff more where as for some, it just brings back bad memories?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jun 6, 2011 4:49pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead Channel on Serius?

Well, for me, having gone from 74-82, I would say that by 82 I didn't really care for the sound, and don't ever listen to any 80s or 90s not so much for "bad memories", but just not caring for the transformation with the band, the scene, everything. When I was going in the 70s I defn enjoyed myself, but as I often have expressed it, it wasn't the absolute perfection to suit my expectations (totally ON me of course) as it didn't sound like what I wanted it to sound like (69, 70 & 71 style). I could see things had changed, and yet I never would've said "hey, the DEAD suck now, just like Airplane became Starship, and suck" (the latter was what I said after seeing them a few times in the mid to late 70s).

As I've said many times, it wasn't til I arrived here, ~ 5 yrs ago, bought all the releases of early era stuff, etc, etc., that I became a complete fanatic about the early era. Though I can listen to a Peggy-O or Crazy Fingers from a show I attended and have fond memories, I just find that there are 100s of other shows I'd prefer to listen to from prior yrs.

Last, like CLIFF, I do love to debate the "objective" (grin) aspects of the evolution, and whether this or that era, taste aside, can be somehow defined as lacking in some sense relative to another. I know I am in a minority in this regard, but I do believe there are tangible, measurable means by which someone can say "yeah, this is worse, this is better" once we agree on a few starting points (assumptions). I also understand that people will still like what they like, sometimes for reasons that aren't amenable to my anal retentive analytical approach.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: wisconsindead Date: Jun 6, 2011 5:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead Channel on Serius?

Awesome that you feel that way. About the objectivity that is. I feel there is a lot to it and i wish i knew the starting grounds on which such a discussion could be held. I just dont know how you go about analyzing critically what the differences are and what makes what better. There is most certainly objectivity in all of this.

I guess i feel ya on no liking where the dead were going, but how in gods name did ya fall off the bus in 82?!?! I never saw the boys so any year missed by a fan is like what is wrong with you!!!! lmao.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Jun 6, 2011 4:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: The Grateful Dead Channel on Serius?

True, there are many factors. Without a 'personal connection' to going to shows, people can easily get into shows from any years - I like what I like, but others enjoy all the years equally, or prefer '84 or '94 or whatnot, and there will always be fans with differing tastes!

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)